[Suggestion] Remove XP for SCU & Terminal Destruction.

You already had that reward. It's called "kill XP", and is very likely significantly higher than the cap reward anyway.

(If you care about fighting, you shouldn't care about cap points.)

Because every good game design involves hard decisions and trade-offs you have to make. You should pick the compromise you want to stick to - and do it, and don't care about the opportunities you are missing because of the style you like to play.

I just said that, because you used your OPINION ONLY as a argument.

And your opinion was, ppl destroy destroy defensive structure just for the exp when most of times they don't conquer the base or it doesn't help in the conquest.

Well the same "argument" can be applied to killing ppl:

Most of times you will not take the base. So why give exp for that?

Again if you are only making a person move from the point A to go and desactive the overload, you are "elimining" a oponent in point A the same you way you would if you killed him.

So you are helping to take the base.

Maybe ppl use that as exploid? Maybe. Still having the same weight of killing a person.

Stopped reading here. You clearly didn't read my post.

Obvious troll is obvious. Seriously guys, I can't believe you all fell for it.

Here's for quadrupling SCU kill XP.

Definitely happy to remove terminal kill XP.

This a million times.

"Your objective may be to capture the base.

Your objective is not always my objective."

Opinion.

"I'm all for removing "rewards" for flipping switches and other non-combat oriented stuff."

Another opinion.

So, what i didn't read?

Your trying to use some sort of pseudo philosophy "can't have this with that" which needn't really apply here. There is no reason we cannot have a territory capture meta-game and still have a good infantry battle up to the last second. You're trying to make excuses as to why my suggestion would be a bad idea, the problem is none of them are good reasons.

To be honest, unless I missed it, there isn't a single mechanic/tactic based argument that would make this change stand out as a bad idea. All I see are opinions, which is fine, you're entitled to that. But trying to argue non-sensically that "you can't do this" with no grounds or basis doesn't cut mustard to those of us who live in a logical world.

Maybe that's because I don't try to say that at all?

What I'm saying is: This game's main focus is about taking objectives. As such, people who play the game as it's meant to be played - which includes taking out the SCU as soon as possible since it helps with that goal while having no downsides at all - will obviously continue to do so, no matter if it brings them XP or even costs them resources. People like you, who only care about the secondary aspects of the game like the fights and the XP, just have to live with that.

Nope, not sure how you extracted that from what I wrote, in fact you made it up completely.

Here is what I responded to:
Maybe he wouldn't feel the need to farm if the need to gain certs to remain competitive wasn't so strong.
Farming is required until you have at least 1 vehicle and 1 infantry class kit ready.

What is competitive? A base vehicle can kill a fully certed vehicle pretty easily, the upgrades are nice bonuses but NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE in any way shape or form.

When you are killed do you sit there and stew thinking the only reason you lost is because the other guy "out-certed" you? How would you even know that or make it quantifiable? There are too many variables involved.

This is even more true when looking at infantry engagements.

So farming isn't required, BR1's are still competitive in every arena, and upgrades don't make up for skill or lack thereof.

Show me a video of a 0 cert stock ESF dominating an A2AM ESF.